ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Medical Device Based on a Virtual Reality-Based Upper Limb Rehabilitation Software: Usability Evaluation Through Cognitive Walkthrough.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using Virtual Reality to Enhance Surgical Skills and Engagement in Orthopedic Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Patients' willingness and needs for ICU virtual reality visits before elective surgery: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Enhancing mental health care through human-computer interaction: AI holistic design of a mental health APP in China.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of virtual reality (VR) technology in rehabilitation therapy has been growing, leading to the development of VR-based upper-limb rehabilitation softwares. To ensure the effective use of such software, usability evaluations are critical to enhance user satisfaction and identify potential usability issues. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the usability of a VR-based upper-limb rehabilitation software from the perspective of occupational therapists. Specifically, the study seeks to identify usability challenges and provide insights to improve user satisfaction. Methods: The VR-based upper-limb rehabilitation software was tailored for therapists to operate while delivering therapy to patients. Usability testing was conducted with occupational therapists from the Korean National Rehabilitation Center using cognitive walkthroughs and surveys. Participants performed tasks that simulated real clinical scenarios, including turning the device on, assisting patients with wearing the device, and shutting it down. Observers recorded user reactions during task performance, and participants completed surveys to assess the ease of use of the user interface. This mixed-methods approach provided qualitative insights into user difficulties and their root causes. Results: Usability evaluations were conducted with 6 participants. Cognitive walkthroughs revealed potential areas for improvement in the software, including (1) enhancements to the graphical user interface for ease of use, (2) refinements in the natural user interface, and (3) better user manuals for clearer product instructions. The ease-of-use score for the user interface averaged 1.58 on a 5-point scale (1=very easy to 5=very difficult). Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into improving user satisfaction by focusing on the needs of occupational therapists who operate a VR-based rehabilitation software. Future research should explore software refinement and clinical efficacy to maximize the therapeutic potential of such technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.